Writ petitions become infructuous after parties settle the land dispute through a civil court decree.

The petitioners challenged a common order dated 5 August 2021 directing that the subject lands be recorded in the names of private respondents 5 and 6. They alleged the order was made without notice or hearing, despite the lands having been mutated in their names

The petitioners did not appear to press the petitions. Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 stated that the parties had settled the dispute and that Civil Suit No. 43-A/2021 had been disposed of by a compromise judgment and decree dated 1 September 2026

The High Court considered the compromise decree

1. Whether the parties’ settlement and the subsequent compromise decree left any dispute requiring adjudication in the writ petitions

2. Whether the Court should adjudicate the petitioners’ challenge to the revenue order on the grounds raised, notwithstanding the settlement

The compromise decree was made on an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for recording a lawful compromise in a suit

The Court treated the settlement, as recorded in the decree, as resolving the dispute to the extent of its terms; it identified no precedent or separate substantive rule governing the original revenue-order challenge

The Court noted that the petitioners were absent and that respondents 5 and 6 relied on the compromise decree disposing of the civil suit

On examining that decree, the Court found that the parties’ dispute concerning the subject land had been settled to the extent recorded in the compromise.

It therefore considered further adjudication of the writ petitions unwarranted and did not decide the merits of the challenge to the revenue order

There was no order as to costs